Molecular rationale for SARS-CoV-2 spike circulating mutations able to escape bamlanivimab and etesevimab monoclonal antibodies

  1. Erik Laurini
  2. Domenico Marson
  3. Suzana Aulic
  4. Alice Fermeglia
  5. Sabrina Pricl

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to provide an in silico molecular rationale of the role eventually played by currently circulating mutations in the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-RBD CoV‑2 ) in evading the immune surveillance effects elicited by the two Eli Lilly LY-CoV555/bamlanivimab and LY-CoV016/etesevimab monoclonal antibodies. The main findings from this study show that, compared to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, mutations E484A/G/K/Q/R/V, Q493K/L/R, S494A/P/R, L452R and F490S are predicted to be markedly resistant to neutralization by LY-CoV555, while mutations K417E/N/T, D420A/G/N, N460I/K/S/T, T415P, and Y489C/S are predicted to confer LY-CoV016 escaping advantage to the viral protein. A challenge of our global in silico results against relevant experimental data resulted in an overall 90% agreement. Thus, the results presented provide a molecular-based rationale for all relative experimental findings, constitute a fast and reliable tool for identifying and prioritizing all present and newly reported circulating spike SARS-CoV-2 variants with respect to antibody neutralization, and yield substantial structural information for the development of next-generation vaccines and monoclonal antibodies more resilient to viral evolution.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-021-99827-3
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.18.444605: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.18.444605v1 on bioRxiv